Okay, I'll ask

[Chris]

Obtuse's thread on the new bikes got me to thinking about what makes a good race bike. It was easier back in the 80s and early 90s. You picked a builder you trusted (I happened to like Serotta :) and am now anxiously awaiting the HSG line) and then you parted the bike together with loving care. You knew then, that you were getting a great race bike, because of the pedigree that went along with the bike. There were drawbacks to that. I always worried in criterium or a sketchy road race, that my work of art was going to get smashed and my summer of saving up would be for not. Replacement took a while and unless you had another bike, you might be screwed. Now that bikes (and wheels for that matter) come out of a box race ready, availability isn't an issue. They're still pricey if you climb too far up the ladder, but you can get a race worthy bike these days for 2K or a little less, easy. That's less than what you would pay for a lot of the nicer frames available now though. I like racing my CAAD 8 because I don't care what happens to it in a race. If I break it, I'll get another. My Moots is pretty durable in contrast, but I'm not motivated to race it, because I don't have to worry about what's under me when I am on the Cannondale. There are issues though. Pedigree is one. Most of these are coming out of factories and then have the company's decals placed on them. A lot of their claims about tubing profiles, etc seem dubious. Many of these lines weren't even around ten years ago. You see my point. Obtuse says a lot of them are poorly designed, and I belive him, but this is where I get lost.

So my question is how does a guy know. I've raced for 20 years and in that time, different things have been important (by my own mistaken thought process) to me in terms of measurements. First it was seattube length, then head and seattube angles combined, then top tube length, and most recently headtube length. Clearly I was mistaken with all of these in thinking that one of these was as important as the gestalt of it. But, how does a guy look at what is available off the shelf (which I think is the most economical way to race). I know what I need in order to fit on my bike in terms of top tube, head tube, and what I prefer in seat angle to get the set back right, but I get lost with front center, etc. I didn't do well in geometry and I still get confused. My team rides Cannondale, so that's what I will be on next year. I guess I just have to trust that they do it right. They've been around for a while and seem to be successful. Their seattube angles are a little slack for me and I end up with a thomson post, but that's okay with me. I have to pick between the System 6 and the CAAD 9 for next year and I have no idea what to do. Will there be a big difference? Does it matter? Is all aluminum better than some carbon and some aluminum?

I'm not asking for all of these questions to be answered for me, I'm simply trying to illustrate the confusion that happens when some of these threads get started and those in the know go back and forth in their language (which I can pick up some of it) while people like myself are left more than a little confused and then second-guessing their next purchase.

I, for one, would appreciate a quick lesson/clarification by those who can provide it. I'm not asking for anyone to talk down or up one product or another. Just comment on what's important.

Thanks

[tch]

that this is a complex area -- simple competing claims don't really help. I DO think that there is more than a bit of personal preference involved, but nonetheless, I, too, would like some clarification and help on how to think about some of these issues.

For a long time, I was focused on comfort and how far away and high or low the bars were compared to my seat. But life gets complex; for there are several ways to get to the same butt-to-hands measurement, for instance. I came to realize that weight distribution -- WHERE my seat and hands were in relation to wheelbase -- was important also. And then there are the issues of fork, front center, and trail [is a shallower HTA combined with a more raked fork the same as a steeper HTA with a shorter rake fork if they both have the same trail number? And how about the question of stem length?]. And just as I got comfortable with a specific reach measurement, I bought a slightly larger bike and realized that a longer reach was comfortable too -- just longer.

So, I don't have any answers -- I'm just seconding your frustration at trying to understand, intellectualize, the variables in bike construction.

[catulle]

Ok. So now you know why Aristotle was a Geometry snob, atmo.

[Fat Robert]

greek bikes suck

roman ones rule

buddhists make unicycles

[catulle]

Romans learned to copy and miniaturize the Greeks. Romans were the old Japanese.

[Fat Robert]

still sore about that Corinth thing? get over it. Legions kickin it 164 style.



youz a mezentius:


lata, hata

[catulle]

still sore about that Corinth thing? get over it. Legions kickin it 164 style.

youz a mezentius:

lata, hata


Just Pan, baby...

"I stood upon the balcony with my brand new bride
the clink of bells came drifting down the mountainside
When in our sight something moved
- lightning eyed and cloven hooved -
The great god Pan is alive!
He moves amid the modern world in disguise
it's possible to look into his immortal eyes
He's like a man you'd meet anyplace
Until you recognise that ancient face
The great god Pan is alive!"

[David Kirk]

I doubt anyone will like this answer but.........nothing has changed since the old days when you went on the pedigree of the builder/company. I don't think that one can realistically look at a geometry spreadsheet and know if the bike will work for you. You may be able to rule it out on the basis of fit but you won't be able to tell if the bike will ride as it should. Can't be done.

So I think you still need to go on the pedigree of the builder. If they are two years old and don't have a pedigree then your purchase might be risky.

If I were spending my hard earned money on a bike I wouldn't be picking the newest stuff out there unless I've been able to take a frame in my size for a real test ride. A Tour De Parking Lot won't get it. It has to be a real ride on the roads you know. If the shop won't let you do that you need a new shop.

There is always some level of risk with a purchase and I feel that the pedigree you speak of is really the years of experience of the builder and the years of happy customers. Ask for feedback from current owners, look at the numbers, take a test ride if you can and then make your decision.

Nothing has changed.

later,

Dave

[LegendRider]

I doubt anyone will like this answer but.........nothing has changed since the old days when you went on the pedigree of the builder/company. I don't think that one can realistically look at a geometry spreadsheet and know if the bike will work for you. You may be able to rule it out on the basis of fit but you won't be able to tell if the bike will ride as it should. Can't be done.

So I think you still need to go on the pedigree of the builder. If they are two years old and don't have a pedigree then your purchase might be risky.



Last year I bought a Parlee. Bob Parlee comes from a boat building background and has only been building bikes for about six years. I previously owned a Pegoretti Fina and I told Parlee to match the geometry. The only change I spec'd was dropping the bottom bracket 3mm (I requested 5mm and they compromised at 3mm). So, given Parlee doesn't yet have the pedigree of Ben Serotta or Dario Pegoretti or David Kirk and I spec'd the design myself, did I do myself a disservice? That's kind of a rhetorical question because it's the best bike I've ever owned.

[David Kirk]

Rhetorical or not..........I don't think you've done yourself a disservice at all. Look at all the happy Parlee customers out there. I've never heard of anyone not liking thier Parlee and that to me is pedigree and trumps time served. There's no guarantee that someone with 30 years of building is doing it well but it's certainly less of a risk. The proof is in the putting and if folks like the bikes they own it's a good risk.

Dave

[1centaur]

I don't think that one can realistically look at a geometry spreadsheet and know if ...the bike will ride as it should. Can't be done.


If one can take for granted good tubes and good joining and strength designed for a rider's weight and power...then I think geometry conclusions CAN be reached, at the least by good builders with experience and probably also by people like obtuse (is anyone like obtuse?).

All my customs were geometrically tweaked by me from stock bikes I rode and all turned out as I expected them to in terms of geometric implications for ride characteristics. Not rocket science. But I think most of the questions in this thread are good ones and we would all benefit from hearing how some builders view the answers.

[David Kirk]

If one can take for granted good tubes and good joining and strength designed for a rider's weight and power...then I think geometry conclusions CAN be reached, at the least by good builders with experience and probably also by people like obtuse (is anyone like obtuse?).



I agree.

I'm just saying that that is a big "if" and "take for granted". If one could take that all for granted I'll bet the the builder would be one considered to be pedigreed. It's the new builders/companies without reputation or track record that might make one not want to take the above for granted. This is complicated a good bit more by some larger companies using bespoke tubes with non-round shapes and undisclosed wall thicknesses.



Dave

[Chris]

Dave,
You could have mentioned that there was an article on your website that explains a lot of this design stuff...